Judgments – Law declared by the Courts: May 2023

Sunday, May 28, 2023

Appointment on the post of Principal in DOE, GNCTD – UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as cut-off date for determining the eligibility – CAT held that the candidates, who completed 10 years teaching experience after the stipulated cut-off date, are entitled to be considered for appointment

15 May 2023

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

Appointment on the post of Principal in DOE, GNCTD – UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as cut-off date for determining the eligibility – CAT held that the candidates, who completed 10 years teaching experience after the stipulated cut-off date, are entitled to be considered for appointment

On 24.04.2021, UPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on 363 posts of Principal in DOE, GNCTD. UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as closing/last date for accepting the application forms. It was also declared that 13.05.2021 shall be the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants.

On 25.04.2021, UPSC deferred the recruitment process in view of Covid-19 pandemic.

On 10.07.2021, UPSC re-published the advertisement. UPSC stipulated that 29.07.2021 shall be the closing/last date for accepting the application forms. UPSC, however, stipulated that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants/candidates shall be 13.05.2021.

One of the requisite eligibility conditions for appointment on the post of Principal was that the applicant must have 10 years teaching experience.

Several TGTs and PGTs of DOE, GNCTD completed the requisite 10 years teaching experience during the period between 13.05.2021 to 29.07.2021. They requested UPSC that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants/candidates must be 29.07.2021 (i.e., the closing date for accepting the application forms) instead of 13.05.2021 (which was the closing date for accepting the application form in the previous advertisement).

UPSC did not accede to the request of the aforesaid applications. Consequently, the aggrieved candidates filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.

Vide Order dated 15.05.2023, the Original Applications of the aforesaid candidates were allowed and UPSC was directed to consider the candidature and declare the result of the applicants/candidates who completed the requisite 10 years teaching experience on/before 29.07.2021. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 15.05.2023 is reproduced below for ready reference: -

“21. After going through the advertisement in question, we are of the opinion that the same is self-contradictory. As stated above, in clause 9 (b), the respondent No.1 – UPSC made it clear that the date of determining eligibility of all candidates in every respect shall be the closing date for submitting the ORA on the website. So, in terms of the advertisement re-issued on 10.07.2021, the closing date for receiving the applications was 29.07.2021, thus the eligibility of the candidate with reference to the experience also ought to be 29.07.2021 in terms of clause 9 (a) referred to above. However, the respondent No.1 in re-issued advertisement dated 10.07.2021 submitted that though the closing date for making online applications would be 29.07.2021, but the eligibility and other conditions as mentioned in the earlier advertisement dated 24.04.2021 remain unchanged, thereby making it clear that the date of receipt of applications though extended, the eligibility criteria in respect of the experience was maintained as per the earlier advertisement. It is important to note that despite the extension of closing date, the respondent No.1 maintained the earlier position of the advertisement in the re-published advertisement.

22. In our view, the above facts make it clear that the advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 is self-contradictory so far as the closing date of eligibility criteria is concerned.

23. From the perusal of clause 9 (b) of the ‘instructions and additional information to candidates for recruitment by selection’ appended with the advertisement in question, it appears to be the policy of respondent No.1 that the eligibility criteria regarding age, qualification and experience would be the closing date for submitting the ORA on the website. We find logic in this stipulation and naturally if the date of online submission of applications is extended by republishing the advertisement and the applications are called afresh, then the eligibility criteria regarding experience could be as on the date of the closing date for submitting ORA on the website.

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in these O.As. They are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

The respondent No.1 – UPSC is directed to declare the results of the applicants and take further appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law. It is made clear that since in terms of the interim directions the applicants were permitted to participate in the selection process, the observations made hereinabove will be confined to the applicants herein only.”

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023052116846708932023%20CAT%20-%20Satish%20Anand.pdf

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

[Satish Anand & Ors. Vs. UPSC & Ors., O.A. No. 1394/2021, decided on 15.05.2023, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Monday, May 15, 2023

Failure to upload e-dossier – rejection of candidature by DSSSB for appointment on the post of Craft Instructor Health & Sanitary Inspector – CAT held that rejection of candidature by DSSSB is illegal and, accordingly, directed DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicant

11 April 2023

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Failure to upload e-dossier – rejection of candidature by DSSSB for appointment on the post of Craft Instructor Health & Sanitary Inspector – CAT held that rejection of candidature by DSSSB is illegal and, accordingly, directed DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicant

In 2014, DSSSB issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Craft Instructor Health & Sanitary Inspector in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Advertisement provided that only hardcopies of documents will be accepted of successful candidates.

In 2019, DSSSB declared that the shortlisted candidates will be required to upload the e-dossier. The applicant was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier. However, the applicant was not aware that he has been shortlisted and therefore, could not upload his e-dossier within the stipulated time.

Vide Order dated 23.01.2020, the candidature of the applicant was rejected by the DSSSB on account of failure to upload the e-dossier.

Being aggrieved by the rejection order dated 23.01.2020, the applicant filed an Original Application (OA No. 862/2020) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

Vide Order dated 11.04.2023, the Hon’ble CAT allowed the Original Application. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 11.04.2023 are as under: -

“5. Heard counsel for the parties. A short question raised by the applicant is whether he is entitled to get selected or not when he has secured one of the highest marks which is sufficient for getting selection by taking help of Clause 4, 5 and 6 reproduced hereinabove. He submits that he was required to upload the e-dossier only after declaration by the respondents as only successful candidates were required to submit copy of challan legible self-attested/Gazetted officer attested/Notarised documents. He did not do so as his wife was pregnant and he was busy taking care of her. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents prior to this, relied upon an order of this Tribunal in OA No. 4042/2017 in Manisha vs. Union of India and Ors. where this Tribunal has dealt with this issue in para 3 which is challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court who has stayed operation of the judgment. The said para 3 of the Tribunal’s order reads as under:-

“3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard briefly. It is not in dispute that the requirement of uploading e-dossiers by the shortlisted candidates was not initially stipulated in the Advertisement Notice as such. Such requirement was stipulated by the DSSSB later. We also notice that a large number of shortlisted candidates have uploaded their e-dossiers in time as they might have been watchful of the DSSSB‟s website on regular basis. The applicant had somehow missed out. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in the list of shortlisted candidates.”

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mrs. Jyoti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. which is reproduced below:

“...........We do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no prescription either in the public advertisement or in any guideline that ten days’ time has necessarily to be provided to the candidates for uploading of their e-dossiers. The DSSSB had re-fixed their schedule by allowing the candidates to upload their e-dossiers from 04.02.2019 to 13.02.2019 and, therefore, even if it is accepted that the petitioner got notice of the said extension only on 08.02.2019 (for which there is no proof placed on record), she had sufficient time even after 08.02.2019 to upload edossiers. The Tribunal has found and we agree with the said findings, that if the petitioner is permitted to upload her e-dossier after the closing of the scheduled period, the same would amount to discrimination against others, who may have similarly not been able to upload their e-dossiers by the notified date and time i.e., 13.02.2019. Merely because the petitioner claims that she was pregnant or out of town is no ground for extension of time as the selection process which is undertaken on a very large scale, cannot be delayed or withheld on account of the circumstances of a particular candidate. The petition is dismissed along with pending application.”

He submits that the present case is covered under these two judgments. We are in agreement with the learned counsel Mr. Anuj Aggarwal that the advertisement is Bible of the appointment for the said post wherein nowhere it is stated that he has to upload his e-dossier. Subsequent amendment in the rule amounts to changing the rules of the games. Though, they have informed the applicant by issuing Roll No. of the said exam that he has to upload his e-dossier, the fact remains that the case of the applicant squarely falls under English judgment in Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s case where law has been laid down century ago that if an advertisement is acted upon and later on respondents cannot relegate from their responsibility. The crux of the said judgment reads as under: -

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley and Bowen) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.”

7. In the present case, there is no such responsibility is cast upon the applicant. The applicant has earned this post by securing highest marks in the exam.

8. Thus, in our considered view, the applicant is entitled to be considered for the said post, if he is otherwise eligible after certifying the documents by the respondents. We hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for the post of Craft Instructor Health and Sanitary Inspector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to say that since the other order/judgment passed by this Tribunal has been stayed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. This decision will also be subject to the final judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court.

9. With this observation, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023042116820498122023%20CAT%20-%20Arvind%20Kaushik.pdf

[Arvind Kaushik Vs DSSSB & Anr., OA No. 862/2023, decided on 11.04.2023, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]